"To jam or not to jam "

No nuclear option required

Broad spectrum jamming is completely unnecessary. Working *with* the carriers, engineer the local system to send the phone the "network saturated" message when in proximity to the area to be denied service.

Inbound, The phone never receives the ring signal, or an SMS message since it's being told on the control channel that there is no data path available.

If you have a legitimate concern about the public safety users, use the WPS class mark to allow the phone to work. This is a modification of the existing carrier-specific in-building solutions.

 

Just a quick reply... What happened to the vibrator
" BEEPERS " ? Let the people who have them go
outside ( wherever) to make their precious cell calls.

My wife works in the medical field and ALL the doctors
have cells and beepers. Of course, they have more class than to disturb people ( other than patients of course ).

It is just the JERKS who don't care...




JB

 

This is a really interesting and diverse group. A little while back people on QRZ were going nuts because New Jersey enacted a rule to require the use of a hands free devices for cell phones while driving, it was a - state taking away your freedoms - issue.

Now I look at messages about how people in resteraunts shouldn't be allowed to talk or speak loudly unless others can eavsdrop on both sides of thier conversation.

Like I said, a diverse group.



Joel

 

They did that here in The People's Republic of Kalifornia, It only applies to private individuals driving non company vehicles not conducting company business. The law was carefully engeneered to exempt everyone except for the average person.

It's really a stupid law.
If people can't chew gum and walk at the same time they don't deserve a drivers license.

GOD I hate this crappy state.

 

Then you simply set it to to trigger when there is no signal. After the IED is planted you call in a threat. Signal goes away and the configuration triggers.

It's tyically a bad idea to assume that people capable of doing bad things are automatically stupid. While may of them are, like Ted K, the unibomber, who killed less people in the same time frame than soda machines (yes, more people were killed by tipping over pop machines in the same period of time) not all of the wacko's are stupid. I'ts like a no code Extra class holder, while there are a large number of appliance operators with no code extra tickets, not all of them are.

And the banning / jamming thing is a joke. As I said before, people need to think before they speak. If we are going to start banning things just because they can be used for terrorist activities, then you may as well just stay home, and at that point, the terrorists win anyhow according to the definition of terrorism, which is to control people or to get your point across with fear.
Speaking of that, how the h*ll does Al Gore run around inciting panic with his global warming speeches and not get jailed for inciting panic?????

 

Cell phone jamming

I fail to see what this has to do with Amateur Radio.

73 all !

Mike KM1R

 

Now, let's see: A movie theater owner installs one of these newly legal jamming devices at some future date. How does he keep his jamming signal confined to the building? Can't have the passersby on the sidewalk outside suddenly losing their signals. Oh, of course, he wraps the building in shielding--aluminum foil should do the trick. Hmmm. Once the building is wrapped, the cell phone signals can't get in, can they?
Problem solved.

 

A simple, yet very easily implemented solution: Have cell phone companies give law enforcement control codes for the cellular towers in the area where they are doing undercover work/serving warrants and RESTRICT THOSE TOWERS TO 911 ONLY. That way, no emergency calls get blocked, as the ONLY number you can call is 911.

It's already done along the border when there is a high-level operation by ICE...

 

I wonder.... could that law be in violation of the Communications Act of 1934?

 

You can hope there would be penalties but that's not what would happen at all.

Somebody with a little sit-down restaurant would install a jammer from eBay (but it now, free shipping!) and leave the gadget running 24/7. It would get tucked up on wall somewhere and forgotten.

So when the building next door catches fire and the first responders can't talk to each other and three of them die when they don't hear the call to pull back, it will be because the little cafe had peace and quiet during every meal.

Stuff like that will eventually happen, if jamming becomes common (and it would). Is that restaurant operator or movie operator ready to accept the liability and consequences? Will their insurance companies cover places that use the devices?

People who have weapons carry permits understand that actually using their weapon even legally has grave implications. My firearms license -yes, I have one- says I can carry my gun, but it doesn't mean I can just shoot anyone with it. It would be investigated very carefully and the laws would be applied if needed.

I don't for a moment think somebody running a movie theater perhaps barely more intelligence than the popcorn butter would care about consequences and proper use, and as such I don't think they should be allowed to have such a disruptive and dangerous device.

With regard to the notion that we need to stop terrorists from using remote triggers, well first off, we sure don't seem to be drowning in terror bombings right now. So thank you, please keep "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" to yourselves. You've terrorized yourselves into being afraid of things under the bed that even your elementary school kids don't see any more. Don't need terrorists to actually DO anything.

Besides which, if terrorists might use phones so we take them away from everyone, what about how terrorists might use cars or trucks to haul bombs? Do we take away all cars or trucks? How about ripping up the roads too? That will stop truck bombs! Well terrorists need shoes too, so ban that and make people walk barefoot everywhere. Heck. they need places to build bombs so take away buildings. Eventually we'll be down to one probably harmless person (with no shoes, car, clothes or house!) per square mile. But we'll all be safe!

 

You have full signal in this situation (5 bars). The network is feeding the phone false status & setup information.

 

I don't know the technology they use (shielding, probably, jamming possibly), but Las Vegas casinos routinely block cell phone traffic from inside the casino, PARTICULARLY in the Sports Book areas. If you try to make a call from the Sports Book, you will discover your phone doesn't work. That's to prevent you from "post dating," taking a ticket for a sports event where the event might be slightly delayed as the casino receives it. I.E., if your cohort at the track alerts you quickly and you know that Fancy Pants just won the 7th race at Belmont, but the casino doesn't have that information yet, you won't be able to quickly buy a big ticket on the horse, then collect your winnings a few minutes later. Casinos are also paranoid about cell phones anywhere in the casino, and security will quickly jump you if they see you using a cell phone in their establishments, even in the buffet area. They just have no sense of humor at all. So, to say that cell phone usage should be a "freedom" and unencumbered, you haven't visited Las Vegas with your cell phone.

 

Unintended consequences

Do you keep your "tractor beam" activated and then pop it up into the window when you want to surprize a speeder?

I know a couple cops that had their testicles removed due to cancer from using radar guns like this. The radar was active all the time and sat in their laps until needed... result: balless cops.

 

Try a coffee can painted black with black felt covered cardboard on the ends. Superglue a coat hanger so the can is on it's side and can hang from the driver's side rear passenger window on the outside (on my white Taurus) looking fore and aft.

You'll have people locking up brakes for hours.

 

Jamming Cellphones

If you look in the FCC R&Rs concerning part 15 intentional radiation devices (Cellphones and other devices), the rules already state that any part 15 device or any unlicensed intentional radiator has to accept any and all interference which that device receives. SO, it would appear that since any cellphone is an unlicensed intentional radiator, it would appear that the law already allows interference to those types of devices. It also appears that, if the device which interferes with that device is licensed, then the user of the unlicensed device has to accept the fact that his/her device is not going to work in the presence of that interfering signal. That should be good enough to justify the use of intentional licensed devices that would inhibit the use of those devices which operate on cellphone frequencies. I think it is a mute point.